Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:10PM
from the we-don't-like-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The online payment provider PayPal has frozen the account of Courage to Resist, which in collaboration with the Bradley Manning Support Network is currently raising funds in support of US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. 'We've been in discussions with PayPal for weeks, and by their own admission there's no legal obligation for them to close down our account,' noted Loraine Reitman of the Bradley Manning Support Network (Support Network). 'This was an internal policy decision by PayPal. ... They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization's checking account by default. While there may be no legal obligation to provide services, there is an ethical obligation. By shutting out legitimate nonprofit activity, PayPal shows itself to be morally bankrupt.'"

That is the biggest problem. They claim they are not a bank so as not to be regulated as a bank in the US, so they are allowed to screw customers by freezing funds at their discretion, not giving enough fraud protection etc.What is amazing though is this: I was reading an article on consumerist (http://consumerist.com/2010/05/keep-paypal-from-using-the-default-atm-debit-setting-to-save-on-bank-fees.html) and someone from Paypal got offended because they were called an "unregulated bank" by the author. So they posted this little tidbit:

we're not regulated as a bank in the U.S. (we don't hold deposits or issue credit)

Whoa, there, cowboy!First of all, what do you call the funds in the Paypal account? IMHO the only reason they are not called a "deposit" is because Paypal can freeze it at will!Secondly, if they are not issuing credit, WTF is "Bill Me Later"??? Just because they don't CALL it credit, it doesn't mean it is not!

"Not a Bank" might not be the absolute correct phrase, at least in terms of what we think of as banking. Broadly speaking, the reasons Paypal gives as "not a bank" would not be enough to be considered 'not a bank' in most countries.

However, those reasons Paypal cites are the same ones that allow certain banks worldwide to avoid reporting rules. There are banks in some countries that are used to launder money or avoid reporting income, and they can do this because they are not subject to certain reporting ru

No, but authoritarian nuts like Isaac-1 like to use the boogie-man of "UCMJ" as a blanket shield to justify any treatment of someone like Bradley in the hopes that you won't look too closely at the actual UCMJ and realize that it doesn't actually allow abusive treatment of prisoners (even after they've been convicted).

American patriotism is measured in other criteria too. Has PayPal bombed any third world country in recent memory? I don't think so! Do they have stars and stripes bumper stickers? No! Do they hate Obama? No again! Listen to Rush Limbaugh? Doubt it.

I'm sure everyone has their own definition of what patriotism means, but it sure as hell doesn't mean you should do everything the authorities tell you to, or align your opinion any other party, be they military, anti-military, or whatever. But I do know what it often stands for. Follow orders and agree with power, and we'll give you rewards, medals, and respectability. Disagree, and we'll call you a traitor, and punish you. Every country has a military, and every country does the same. Heroes and patrio

Yeah. I don't do business with PayPal. Trying to figure out how to stop doing business with Visa and Mastercard too.

I would love for them to be forced to pay me every time they do something unfair in support of 1930's Germany^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H2010's United States. All four of my grandparents risked their lives to defeat fascism.

There really is no excuse for this at all. We're all entitled to a fair trial and the best legal defense available to us. This signifies that Paypal doesn't support the constitution or the rule of law. Shameful.

Paypal is a private entity. Unfortunately, it's not doing anything illegal or unconstitutional, as far as I can tell, by choosing not to do business with someone. What Paypal should do though is return the funds and those donors decide what to do with their own money, not choose for them.

As an aside, I've never and never will, use Paypal for anything. I can send a check to a PO BOX. That's not secure, but I don't think of Paypal as secure either. If I want to be anonymous, I can send a money order. Stop giving Paypal business is my opinion.

There really is no excuse for this at all. We're all entitled to a fair trial and the best legal defense available to us. This signifies that Paypal doesn't support the constitution or the rule of law. Shameful.

Paypal is a private entity. Unfortunately, it's not doing anything illegal or unconstitutional, as far as I can tell, by choosing not to do business with someone.

Too many arguments go like this. I believe it misses the real point being made. It was already well-established by the summary that Paypal has no legal obligation here.

If you truly support the Constitution and principles like rule of law and due process, then you adhere to them even if the government is not going to use force to make you adhere to them. Anywhere that there is a choice in the matter, you get to see what people really believe in. Paypal wouldn't even provide a copy of the relevant portions of their policy.

The funny thing is the implied hypocrisy. If any of the decision-makers at Paypal did find themselves in violation of the law, they'd never surrender their rights to due process. They'd want to know which law they are being accused of having broken. They'd want the prosecution to have to prove every claim it makes. But in their own little kingdom where they both make and enforce the rules, they want the ability to arbitrarily shut anyone down without ever having to demonstrate that they violeted the rules or even citing which rules would apply.

In my opinion, they're assholes and if you do business with them, it is because you want assholes to prosper. Like you, I have never onced used Paypal and because of behavior like this, I never will. This is not remotely the first example of pathological behavior from this company.

I work for PayPal, but don't have any knowledge of why this decision was made first hand.

I can say that in many past cases where a non-profit's funds were frozen, and everyone makes a stink about how evil PayPal is, it comes down to the fact that after the Patriot Act, PayPal is obligated by law to make sure non-profits file extra paperwork to prove their status. I think Xorg's funds were frozen for a while and everyone interpreted as PayPal hating open source, when in reality they just forgot to file paperwork.

This certainly could be PayPal refusing to do business with anyone associated with WikiLeaks after Anonymous tried a DDoS attack on api.paypal.com, but it could also be another technicality.

As an aside, I've never and never will, use Paypal for anything. I can send a check to a PO BOX. That's not secure, but I don't think of Paypal as secure either. If I want to be anonymous, I can send a money order. Stop giving Paypal business is my opinion.

Unfortunately, that's not a viable option for many people, such as people who sell goods online.

1) Most buyers don't care about the problems with Paypal, they want to pay for stuff and get it quickly. Accepting only money orders is not a realistic option

The true motivations of this guy are very clear, "we can circumvent the constitution by making everything private". Privatise everything and EVERY thing can be regulated without it coming down on the state. Right to have shelter? Sure you do, not out problem the renting industry doesn't want to rent to you. Right to counsel? Sure you do, not our problem you can't afford to pay for a private lawyer. Right to speech? Sure you do, not our fault you can't afford a spot on private television.

Paypal does provide protection if you buy something and the Seller (a) doesn't deliver it

News to me. I had that happen once, and PayPal told me to go screw myself. So I did a chargeback. Well, they didn't tell me to screw myself, they told me to prove I never received the item. Since that's impossible and they know it, I took it as a "go screw yourself" request.

Yep, same here. I tried to buy something on Craigslist and the seller stopped talking to me as soon as I sent in my PayPal payment. I registered a complaint, but by PayPal's official policy, they won't even look into complaints until 7 days later, to encourage buyers and sellers to "work it out for themselves" first.

Put in a dispute with my credit card company and had the payment to PayPal stopped within 24 hours. After that, PayPal processed the complaint just a day or two afterwards. Maybe before or a

The question is not whether PayPal has the right to do this. They most assuredly do.

I disagree with that. They are a bank. Whether they are currently regulated as such in the US is irrelevant to the question of whether they are one. As such, they do not have the "right" to do this. That the government has chosen to declare the bank to be not-a-bank because of bribes received is irrelevant to whether they are a bank and whether they have the right to do it. Having the power to do it doesn't mean they have the right to.

There really is no excuse for this at all. We're all entitled to a fair trial and the best legal defense available to us. This signifies that Paypal doesn't support the constitution or the rule of law. Shameful.

Nowhere does the Constitution say that you have the right to have an online money-transfer system facilitate a non-profit in taking donations for a legal defense fund. They are a business, they have the right to refuse service to someone. If Amazon suddenly said "sorry, we aren't going to carry any of your books anymore", are you going to sue them for violation of your 1st Amendment rights against free speech?

Besides, as he would be tried under court martial since he is a uniformed service member, the military has to provide him with counsel(a military officer). He can of course hire additional civilian lawyers if he so desires. But, if this infringes on his constitutional rights, then that would mean that anyone who did not have a non-profit taking donations for them would have been deprived of their rights as well. And(to get really pessimistic), the Constitution says nothing about the quality of your counsel, only that you have the right TO counsel.

Big distinction -- they took the money from donators, and are refusing to pass it over the those whose account it was supplied to.

PayPal can certainly refuse to deal further business with this fund, that is their right. But they should be required to either release the funds collected to the legal fund, or refund it to all donators, such that said funds can be donated through alternative means.

The summary says why they did it. Paypal asks that the account be set up so that Paypal can withdraw by default. They don't have an account set up for that, so they aren't holding to their part of the agreement. If they don't like those terms, they don't have to to business with Paypal.

That's not a requirement. I had an account that wasn't linked to my bank account which worked well. And I closed my account because of the Wikileaks debacle and let them know why. The only reason they want the bank account number is because they want to (or have been given orders to) track who is giving what to who.

Either way, stop supporting PayPal. They don't HAVE to support people's rights but I don't HAVE to give them my business. Google Checkout is still available.

The Constitution is designed to protect freedoms. Here a private business has the right to refuse or offer service as they see fit. You would suggest that they be obligated to provide service to anyone against their will because it fits your wishes.

Whether or not PayPal offers a financial service to a website doesn't change whether or not he will receive a fair trial.

We need more traitors like that. People should not be allowed to kill indiscriminately regardless of who they are or what their position is. Have you actually read any of the documents he leaked? Soldiers were gunning down whole families because there may possibly have been some terrorists nearby. If our country is going to be doing that then "We the People" need to put an end to it and we can't do that if we don't know what is going on. Afterall, "We the People" are the source of the government in the US, right? If not then worse traitors than Bradly Manning have already done their damage and the wrong traitor is on trial. How can we "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" when the crooks and murderers in charge may hide from us everything important that is going on?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem using PayPal as a buyer if that's how a merchant has their account set up (though I'll only use credit cards through them and won't ever, ever, link a bank account with them). But who in their right mind would ever use this fucktards as their clearing house for financial transactions? Just get a merchant account and use your bank's credit card processing services, or go with someone like Google Checkout or Authorize.net. Using PayPal seems like you're just begging to ha

Only Amex and Discover left. I've suspended use of my Mastercard since the incident and have been looking into switching to Discover or Amex. Did you know Discover has 3x higher processing fees than the Big 2, and is generally a massive PITA for businesses to deal with? That's why nobody uses them. Amex's processing fees are almost as high.

Only Amex and Discover left. I've suspended use of my Mastercard since the incident and have been looking into switching to Discover or Amex. Did you know Discover has 3x higher processing fees than the Big 2, and is generally a massive PITA for businesses to deal with? That's why nobody uses them. Amex's processing fees are almost as high.

Actually Discover's processing fees are on par with VISA and Mastercard. It's AMEX who charge double or triple what the others charge.

I cannot imagine why any sane person or organization would use PayPal as a bank-like entity after their many, many, MANY abuses of their "not a bank" status.

Seriously... It surprises more to hear about people successfully getting their money out, than stories like the FP.

Really simple, folks - Just stop using them. Period. They have the right not to serve us, and we have the right not to use them. Exercise that right, and put these bastards permanently in the red ASAP.

I cannot imagine why any sane person or organization would use PayPal as a bank-like entity after their many, many, MANY abuses of their "not a bank" status.

Seriously... It surprises more to hear about people successfully getting their money out, than stories like the FP.

Really simple, folks - Just stop using them. Period. They have the right not to serve us, and we have the right not to use them. Exercise that right, and put these bastards permanently in the red ASAP.

So how are you supposed to accept credit cards then?

No one else lets you accept credit cards from random strangers without having to follow some really weird and arcane rules to satisfy the merchant account rules. Google Checkout doesn't (it requires you be a store), not sure about Amazon Payments, but I think it's similar as well.

Face it - the only real reason people use Paypal is because it's pretty much the only way Joe Average can transfer some money to John Smith via credit card. Sure you can go to the post office and get a money order, mail it off, hope it arrives a week later,... rigamarole, but that seems idiotic in this day and age of fast and easy e-commerce.

And the other options aren't much better - western union? egold?

Until someone manages to find a way to allow two random people on the internet send random amounts of money via credit card, Paypal's it. You want to put them out of business? Set it up in Paypal's niche.

It's also why eBay bought Paypal - because they're very synergistic.

And here's another question - why did they use Paypal? Why couldn't they set up their own merchant account? Or use Google Checkout? Or Amazon Payments? Most likely, either the fees are higher (Paypal may charge a lot, but credit card processors aren't cheap, either), or they didn't qualify. If they didn't qualify, Paypal ends up being the only way to accept credit cards.

So why are people falling into the same trap again and again? Google Checkout and Amazon Payments should also work, as does a merchant account...

So far, the only nominally credible journalistic outlet reporting on this story (and indexed so far by teh Google) is Huffington Post, which appears to be reporting solely based upon the press release.

This would be a great opportunity for some actual journalism - to find out why Paypal actually suspended access, what the reason behind the checking account access requirement is, whether or not there's government pressure at work here, and whether or not there's something that Courage to Resist knows about but isn't saying in their press release.

Or, we could just blindly accept everything Courage to Resist says as the unvarnished truth.

That policy does not apply only to 501(c)(3)'s. They were emphasizing that it also applies to them.

PayPal needs you to have a bank account for at least two reasons: 1. identification; the presumption being if a bank believes you are who you are, then you are; for what that's worth. 2. to fund your account automatically if you make a payment from your PayPal account in excess of your PayPal balance; there's actually a whole list of things PayPal can try in order to cover your payment, so having an empty bank account isn't automatically going to stop the transaction.

CTR is full of crap, is ladling it out generously, and a whole slew of slashdotters are eating it with relish and ketchup on top.

It says nothing about PayPal demanding "unrestricted access" to a bank account. It further goes on to state that they are _not_ seeking the ability to unilaterally withdraw money from the bank account.

PayPal simply requires that all non-profit accounts be linked to a bank account-- among other things you have to go through too, to confirm your non-profit status. In return for this sort of thing, PayPal charges less on the transaction fees.

Its actually a pretty clearly spelled out policy... non-profit accounts have to be linked to a bank account. That _doesn't_ mean you have to grant PayPal the ability to roam around the bank account and do anything they want to.

Its actually a pretty clearly spelled out policy... non-profit accounts have to be linked to a bank account. That _doesn't_ mean you have to grant PayPal the ability to roam around the bank account and do anything they want to.

Yes, yes it does. Because when you give them access to make deposits and withdrawals, which is what you are doing when you "link" paypal to your bank account, then you are giving them permission to do anything they like to your account in practice whether or not that was your intention. I say this as a paypal user who has never had a single problem. It's just a matter of time though, right? If I were doing any meaningful volume, or if I had any meaningful amount of money in the account linked to paypal, then I would feel vulnerable. I would use something else, but nothing else lets me do what paypal does.

I work for a non-profit that does nothing remotely controversial and we have had to deal with the exact same issue. PayPal forces EVERYONE to withdraw from a bank account by default. They make no distinction about who they are dealing with and they care less about non-profit status. Because they are a quazi-monopoly on ebay payment they pretty much force people to do what they want if you want to buy or sell on ebay.

If you want to be outraged, be outraged that the they use their monopoly status to force their fingers into bank accounts, not that the made some political move they actually didn't make.

Is this just for merchants? Every time I make a transaction as a seller they bug me about linking to a checking account, but so far I've managed to avoid doing it. The day they require it is the day I stop using them altogether.

So now Bradley Manning's ability to mount a strong defense is directly affected by corporate behavior having nothing to do with the judicial system. Gee, who knew that "business" could affect "justice" so directly? Does anybody really still think that simple campaign finance reforms are reformation enough?

Corporate behavior can be as dangerous to democracy and ethics as any military campaign.

"They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization's checking account by default"

Set up an account that only has PayPal deposits in it. Transfer that money daily to another account they do not have access to. At the wost, paypal can only take back the money they have deposited for that day. Problem solved and everyone's happy.

I didn't really have a "hero" when I was a kid, nor did I as I was growing up, primarily because all of the "heroes" I was told I should look up to were either fictitious (and thus inherently biased) or simply bullshit. Even as a kid that was pretty obvious. I did have people I looked up to, people I emulated as being role models, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., but they focused on the symptoms of what was really a cancer that needed to be excised--they never addressed the root of the problems they made so much noise about.

I do have a "hero" now, and have since the day I heard about him. Bradley Manning. He found himself in possession of something that could actually be used to address the root of those problems and did what he though would best serve that goal, as well as do what he took an oath to do--protect his country, not the government, but his country...at all costs, up to and including his life.

Say what you will, but any way I look at it Bradley Manning knowingly risked his life to provide the citizens of this country, as well as the rest of the world, with KNOWLEDGE, knowledge that I think is crucial to our understanding of those we employ to run our country, and by extension, a large portion of the rest of the world (another issue entirely). It is one thing to speak out, it is another thing entirely to risk one's life in order to speak out. He knew the risks and weighed them carefully, I am sure.

Many do not understand his actions simply because they wouldn't do such a thing themselves--put themselves in harms way for the betterment of others. That in itself, in my mind, is a symptom of exactly what he is trying to fix--the selfish ambivalence pervasive in our society that allows our elected leaders, as well as corporations, to do pretty much anything they want. That selfish ambivalence is a product of the misinformation and lies we've all been handed, as well as the omission of data from the public domain. The release of those cables is a huge step in dealing with such issues.

That being said, fuck you Paypal. I've never been a customer and I never will because of shit like this (that also rules out doing business with anyone that requires PayPal transactions).

Anyone have any idea if Courage to Resist has set up a SECURE (and by that I mean "unfreezable") means of donating? I'd like to donate.

If anyone complains about an account then PayPal freezes it, without explanation to the account holder. They've always done this, and not just for high profile accounts. The only solution is to not use PayPal if it would inconvenience you to lose all the funds on your account.

I don't owe Bradley Manning a fair trial because I'm not a government entity. He is entitled to a fair trial before government punishment is meted out, period. I'm entitled to form an opinion of him based on available knowledge and I'm also free to decide to not associate with him in any way whether or not that opinion is based on fact or conjecture. PayPal is afforded the exact same rights that I am. They don't owe him anything and they certainly aren't forced to wait for government trials to conclude befo

I'm also free to decide to not associate with him in any way whether or not that opinion is based on fact or conjecture. PayPal is afforded the exact same rights that I am.

In my opinion, this is yet another example of why corporations deserve LESS rights than real citizens, not the same or more.

Furthermore, you didn't say you would associate with him. Paypal on the other hand has agreed to transfer funds for all legal transactions. Singling out this one because they think/hope he's guilty or disagree with him, or wish to curry favor with those government powers that have already decided his fate, no, that's not legitimate. Legal of course.

Manning is a hero to democracy. He risked everything to ensure that the people found out the truth about all the dirty secrets. I personally believe that in order for our world to get past all the bickering and warring, we will need open government as a constraint. We will not be able to properly explore deep space and survive our eventual destruction without complete openness in all aspects of our lives as well. Until then, we will be playing shadow games with one another and we will remain stuck on this r

so why the fuck am I supposed to feel bad that this guy is getting exactly the punishment that he knew he would get?

3/10, but I'll bite anyway - Because whether or not his case amounts to a prosecutorial slam-dunk, he still has the right to a fair trial.

More importantly, this has less to do with whether or not you should "feel bad" for him, than with whether or not a private business has the right to arbitrarily seize your assets temporarily in their possession. The specifics here (depriving someone o

The American adversarial criminal-law system could use some serious adjustments, but the way it stands now, the government will do everything it can to put Manning in prison for a suitably long period of time so the gov can claim a political win. Federal judges are not likely to stand up for justice, either.

The only chance Manning has of even a small amount of justice is to be represented by a good legal team. That requires lots of money, in the U.S. Justice is not only about whether the jury reaches the

why are you anonymous ? before accusing someone of treason, someone should develop the balls needed for expressing their views with at least a dubious registered website account. notice - i didnt even say 'with your own identity'. such is the level you are at, currently.

Thank you for demonstrating the root problem here - the conflation of Morals = Ethics. They don't, and this situation is a perfect example. Paypal may not be acting Ethically. They are incapable (as is any corporation) of acting Morally.

Also, they are entirely justified in refusing access to this account - if, as it says in the summary, the account holder has not authorized withdrawals from the associated checking account. Paypal has always required the ability to withdraw from an account automatically, to

Why? Because your Business Ethics professor wishes it to be true that morality applies to corporations, a non-thinking, non-acting entity? There can be a moral code associated with a group (such as a tribe, or a corporation), but morality can only be applied to the actions of a thinking individual. As such, corporations cannot be held to a moral code; only the individuals affiliated with the corporation can. Sure, the corp could support moral actions while discouraging immoral actions, but it's not the

Hilariously, Paypal was actually started by a libertarian as some sort of "resist the man and his fiat currency's dead hand on trade." kind of thing. Now it voluntarily licks the boots of those who would suppress the entirely legal efforts of an advocacy group to secure a man a fair trial(rather than the present detention-without-trial-of-indefinite-length...)

You have no clue what happend with the original company as it was founded. Criminals were using Paypal to launder money. As a result, the Feds started putting serious pressure on the company "or else". It was either that or close up shop so they had to play ball. I admire what they tried to do. We need competing currencies and ways to exchange money without the Feds knowing about it. There's no way the IRS would ever let that happen.

http://www.bitcoin.org/ [bitcoin.org] and a recent episode of Security Now went into a bunch of detail about the theory of how it works.

(tl;dr hard crypto-guesswork puzzles are used to restrict the creation of their new digital currency. It is apparently anonymous and untraceable, and some sites already exist that will trade it for RL US$)

Hilariously, Paypal was actually started by a libertarian as some sort of "resist the man and his fiat currency's dead hand on trade." kind of thing. Now it voluntarily licks the boots of those who would suppress the entirely legal efforts of an advocacy group to secure a man a fair trial(rather than the present detention-without-trial-of-indefinite-length...)

All hail the private sector, defender of liberty!

Far as I can tell Paypal is just another pro-Establishment tool despite any intentions of its founder. Wikileaks has been accused of no crime in any jurisdiction, but they irritate a lot of powerful people. So Paypal interferes with the effort to support Wikileaks by using Paypal to make donations. Manning is currently facing some serious accusations; he is accused of leaking information that ended up in Wikileaks which again pisses off a lot of powerful people. So Paypal freezes the account that would have been used to fund his legal defense.

This is opinionated speculation only, but I really wonder what kind of favors or kickbacks Paypal is going to receive in the future. They have faithfully served their masters it would seem, and that's obviously not its users and customers. Fascism is the merging of corporate and government power. Corporations doing what is convenient for the government and acting against people government doesn't like, in the absence of any actual requirement to do so, is a step in that direction for certain.

Even those who are guilty as sin deserve a fair trial. So long as their fair trials are funded voluntarily there is nothing that needs to be stopped.

Far as I can tell Paypal is just another pro-Establishment tool despite any intentions of its founder.

Founder's intentions mean squat with any company after it's been bought out by someone else.

Just look at Ebay: back in the late 90s when it was new, it was a great place for regular people to sell off their old crap, like a big internet garage sale. It had low fees, and few problems aside from scammers (a problem any time you deal with private sellers). Now it's been taken public, has a CEO, and is mired in greed and unethical behavior. Fees are ridiculously high, small-time sellers are screwed over in favor of "power sellers" who sell tons of Chinese-made junk, and scamming is still a giant problem because the company (even though it has far more resources than ever) refuses to do anything about it.

This is opinionated speculation only, but I really wonder what kind of favors or kickbacks Paypal is going to receive in the future.

My theory is that their purpose in scratching the government's back is to keep the government off their back when anyone complains about their actions, which would be illegal if they were chartered as an actual bank. So they get to act like a bank, talk like a bank, quack like a bank, but when they prefer to do something that banks aren't allowed to do (like freeze accounts arbitrarily), they can say "we're not a bank!" and get away with it because the government doesn't want to bother them after their help with "annoying" issues like this.

Manning is currently facing some serious accusations; he is accused of leaking information that ended up in Wikileaks which again pisses off a lot of powerful people. So Paypal freezes the account that would have been used to fund his legal defense.

I hate Paypal. They are one of the most corrupt organisations in the world. However in this case it appears it has nothing to do with Wikileaks or Manning and instead is just a breach of the terms of service. All other donation accounts require paypal to have access to the checking account where the funds are to be transfered. Make what you will of this rule, but in this case they have come out and said the account and funds will be thawed as soon as the account complies with the same rules as every other a

Hilariously, Paypal was actually started by a libertarian as some sort of "resist the man and his fiat currency's dead hand on trade." kind of thing. Now it voluntarily licks the boots of those who would suppress the entirely legal efforts of an advocacy group to secure a man a fair trial(rather than the present detention-without-trial-of-indefinite-length...)

I'm no fan of Bradley Manning. I think he's a fool and not worth all the hero worship and calls to rally a defense. But in so far as said rally is legal, I can't abide by Paypal interfering with it.

When you join the military you sign away your rights. You are subject to the UCMJ.

You can never sign away rights. You can't sign yourself into slavery. You can, however, sign a contract with the government that subjects you to another set of rules with "alternate" rights. But you know what the rules are before you enter, and they are consistently (if not always fairly) applied. The rights aren't "gone" but you agree to abide by more restrictive ones for the time you are employed by those who, ultimately, grant the rights (and please, no arguments about rights being innate, I understand that argument and point out that, whether true, that's not how rights operate in the real world).

Peter Thiel [wikipedia.org], who's gone on to fund libertarian projects like the Seasteading Institute. But he and the other founders of PayPal sold out to eBay years ago, so you can't blame him for its current morally bankrupt decisions.

B)UCMJ, Subchapter II, section 810, Article 10: "Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of w

Depends on the bank. Banks favorite source of new found cash is automatic overdraft protection. Should the attempt to withdraw money which is not funded in your account, your bank may decide to transfer funds from another account (typically checking and then savings in that order) into the other to cover the transfer. Furthermore for doing this favor for you, they'll then charge you $25-$75 (varies from bank to bank) for each occurrence they protected your overdraft. Should you then start bouncing checks el

At one point I was able to buy something only with payment through Paypal and I rather did not buy it then use them. I even have used a much more expensive way (international back transfer) then using them.

Not using them is the only way. I also tell friends never to use them. One once tried to tell me I was wrong. I stated that he as a doctor did not know his profession if I did not know mine. After some more explanation, he also stopped using

Not at all. As someone who holds a US security clearance I am absolutely against what he is accused of doing; it was dangerous, irresponsible, and against an oath he took when he agreed to accept his clearance level. At the same time, I have very little faith in a government appointed defense attorney providing the best defense available, which I feel such a high profile, political case deserves. Considering the man has been in solitary confinement for nearly 6 months now without so much as a peep out of anyone representing him, I'd say my lack of faith is well founded. Even if you assume that the man is guilty (which is always a dangerous and stupid thing to do) he deserves the right to defend himself in a court of law and other people have the right to raise money for that defense.

Banks profit from transaction fees when you use debit and credit cards. Digital cash would, by its nature, remove such fees, and thus close a revenue stream for banks.

Digital cash is anonymous, and so law enforcement agencies would suddenly find themselves unable to look into someone's financial transactions. Spending a large amount of cash gets you reported to the DEA; you are supposed to use the easier-to-trace check or debit/credit card sy